Why not produce a 50L which is the 50 many photographers wanted as a robust, high quality L lens which is a razor sharp f1.4, and keep the current 50L as a specialist 'art' or portrait lens.

It's annoying that those of us who like the 'standard' 50/1.4 have to put up with such a flimsy, cheap plastic lens, with appalling manual focus, no full USM, WS etc.

Where would this leave the rumoured 50/2 or 50/1.8 IS ? Well maybe that lens is going to replace the current 50/1.8 as the cheapest prime that is very popular as a first lens to compliment the kit zoom.

Why not produce a 50L which is the 50 many photographers wanted as a robust, high quality L lens which is a razor sharp f1.4, and keep the current 50L as a specialist 'art' or portrait lens.

It's annoying that those of us who like the 'standard' 50/1.4 have to put up with such a flimsy, cheap plastic lens, with appalling manual focus, no full USM, WS etc.

Where would this leave the rumoured 50/2 or 50/1.8 IS ? Well maybe that lens is going to replace the current 50/1.8 as the cheapest prime that is very popular as a first lens to compliment the kit zoom.

The topic of whether the new non-L 50 IS will be the base-level or the mid-level has been heavily speculated already in these forums.

Personally, I think it will be mid-grade and replace the 50 F/1.4 (old-)USM. I just can't see the nifty fifty being retired -- it holds a unique price point and serves a common need as a photographer's first prime.

But there are those that would correctly argue that all of the non-L IS USM refreshes to date (24/28/35) have replaced the cheapest non-USM lenses so far.

Whatever line it replaces, that new lens will sell like hotcakes. It will be sharper than the 50L (heck the 20 year old 50 F/1.4 is already sharper today at some apertures), lighter, have IS, have true internal focusing (without the front element sliding inside the housing), and have proper modern USM. The only thing it won't have is weather-sealing and the widest possible aperture. But even at F/2, I'm probably buying that lens.

For me, the 50mm FL would be too close to my beautiful 35mm f2 IS. I'd have a LOT more interest in an EF 85mm f2 IS (non L and priority on optical formula for fast focus). It should be "future proof" to have "buckets of resolution, acutance, MFT10, MTF50, MFT90, micro-contrast, color tonality" to nicely "feed" a 40 mpx full frame sensor with 14 EV of DR ... maybe 16 EV with an improvement over MagicLantern's Dual-ISO, but that's a different issue related to the sensor and body.

All I wish lenswise is that Canon would produce a 14-24mm (or better, a 12-24mm or, even better a 10-24mm) and announce if they will (or will not) produce a new 100-400mm.

I think that Canon´s new 50mm could be a behemoth 50mm f/1.4L just to compete with Zeiss or Sigma, but I would like to see a new 50mm f/1.2L or 50mm f/1.0L just for bragging rights.

[]´sLeandro

I ran (what I thought to be) an interesting poll on the nature of the 14-24 interest in this forum. I asked if people had a choice of the sharpness of Nikon's 14-24 or the focal length of Nikon's 14-24 -- and you could only have one -- what would you choose?

75% of respondents said they just wanted a sharper ultrawide than their current 16-35/17-40 options.

25% stuck to their guns that they'd accept the current (lack of) sharpness from their 16-35 lenses applied to the wider 14mm FL.

Keep in mind this was run before the very nice 16-35 F/4L IS was released. But I find it fascinating that (with this limited sample size), the majority of people clamoring for a 14-24 just want a sharper ultrawide. But, based on your comments, I have to assume you'd want the focal length over the sharpness (if you had to choose).

I have to say, you might just want to go and get the Nikon 14-24 if you want the Nikon 14-24.Canon's 14mm prime is competitive compared to the Nikon Zoom, and Canon seems fairly set on the 16-35 zoom range. The Nikon 14-24 is already cheaper than the Canon prime as well, and if you're going to get both the prime and zoom from Canon it would probably cost just as much as the zoom lens and a cheap D600 from Nikon.

I should also note that the 90mm TS is not an "L" lens.I'm really hoping for a 135mm tilt shift, I already tried to buy the 90mm last winter and supposedly the dealer ordered one but I haven't heard from them since.

We’re told to expect new Canon L primes, but none will be announced in 2014.

So much for the "year of the lens" bullshit. Once again the marketing hype has wound everyone up, but the package in the mail is empty.

Quote

The second is a new 50L in late 2015. The new lens is said to be a lot smaller and lighter, perhaps a drop to f/1.4?

Much smaller than its predecessor, and a 50L, hmmm.... perhaps the oldest lens in the lineup, the 50mm f/2.5 Macro (released 1987), is about to meet its maker. That 50mm lens could be made noticeably more compact near its current aperture. And it would be sensible to upgrade that to an L series lens, much as with the 100L Macro, as it then could command a higher price. That would heat up profits on it, too, which are probably currently tepid. In addition, it might become an f/2.8, probably would get better autofocus, and probably would focus to life-size without an accessory. It is a lens replacement that would be best released about the same time as a new advanced amateur camera. It's something to think about, anyway.

Of course, the 50mm f/1.8 II (1990) and 50mm f/1.4 (1993) are also moldy, and the latter has significant competitive pressures that also favor an upgrade to L series status. So we shall see.